MPs call for railway review in Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme
MPs have made fresh calls to overhaul two south London railway stations as part of a review into the Brighton mainline. During a parliamentary debate on the Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme (CARS), Labour's Croydon East MP Natasha Irons and Crawley MP Peter Lamb called for the plans to be reviewed after they were delayed - by the pandemic, by changes in passenger behaviour and by funding constraints.The MPs argued that without changes to East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations, efforts to improve or expand would be severely limited.Irons said further delays could "hold back economic growth for the coast-to-capital region".
Initially proposed in 2020, CARS was intended to relieve the bottleneck in the Croydon area on the Brighton mainline, a key route between London and the south coast, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.Network Rail said the issues were caused by "a lack of capacity" at East Croydon station and "the complex series of junctions" north of Croydon, but argued CARS would deliver a faster, more reliable service with improved connectivity.Irons told the Commons two new platforms would be added at East Croydon station along with a larger concourse to improve facilities and connections to local transport networks.She said it would also modernise Norwood Junction station by extending the platforms and add a footbridge with a lift.
Lamb said many Crawley residents depend on the Brighton mainline for their daily commute, and the service they face is becoming "more cramped and unreliable every year". She added that without investment, conditions will continue to worsen, "and by 2040, there may not be any space left for passengers at all".
During the debate the two MPs also referred to the expansion of Gatwick Airport and the current Labour government's shift towards greater public ownership of the rail network to support their argument for CARS to be looked at again.They argued that delaying CARS would hinder growth and impact the regions between London, Crawley and Gatwick."If anything, the expansion of Gatwick Airport makes addressing the capacity challenges at East Croydon station even more critical," Irons said. She told MPs if the project moved forward, it could also help facilitate the development of the "Croydon opportunity area" - earmarked for 14,500 new homes and 10,500 new jobs by 2041. In response, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Transport, Simon Lightwood, said he regretted that he was unable to comment on individual projects until the spending review has concluded in June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
35 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
